Gilbert Arenas Learns About NBA Analytics & HATES It!!
Vložit
- čas přidán 24. 05. 2024
- Gilbert Arenas Learns About NBA Analytics & HATES It as Josiah tries to sneak some advanced stats into a segment and the Gil’s Arena Crew loses it!! Watch as Gil learns all about true shooting percentage and explains how it’s a scam to make players look better.
Gil’s Arena premieres every Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday at 11:30am PT / 2:30pm ET.
Sign up for Underdog Fantasy HERE with promo code GIL and get up to $250 in Bonus Cash and A Special Pick: play.underdogfantasy.com/p-gi...
SUBSCRIBE: / @gilsarena
Join the Underdog discord for access to exclusive giveaways and promos!
/ discord - Sport
I’ll never forget 10 years ago Isiah Thomas was on a show and he said soon nba basketball is beginning to emulate the video game all dunks layups or 3s
That’s what people are saying would make the W more exciting so what’s the problem
Sadly he was correct
And folks love to call Zeke a hater when he's telling the truth.
I don’t really understand can you explain? Like just becoming an offensive league?
How else can you score
These clips come in clutch when you just need background noise lol hall of fame black barbershop talk
Fuck yeah
Really
That's because you're a wannabe Black man that never got picked for anything. Newbeien? It should be NUBIAN. Your name is even wannabe
When I’m at work or cleaning around the house
It also reminds me how dense hoopers are and why I shouldn't try to debate basketball online because they spend 10 minutes on a topic that any highschool math major would understand
How is it difficult to understand? If someone contributed more points with the same amount of shots as someone else, then he has a higher TS%. That simple
I think they get it. They are just saying the shooting from 3 is terrible so maybe if the guy shot more 2s he would score more. Because many of the 3s he missed he could make it he took easier shots. It’s useless all just meant to make people think it’s better to just shoot more 3 and to make shots like midrange and closer seem pointless.
Gil is looking at from a different pov and that's why he didnt get it. Gil looking from a true stat perspective and saying how can you assume someone would make and miss the same amount of 2s as he would 3s if never actually took those shots. To me its stupid. Most nba players only make 3-4 3s out of 10 but don't players shoot 50+ from the field. Its useless data.
They get it. They just feel it’s bs. It can be misleading
They understand they just don't subscribe to it being valuable. How do YOU non hoopers not understand that? It's simple.
@@mickee06it’s not useless data. Making 3.5 out of 10 from 3 is better than making 5 of 10 from 2 it’s just math. 10.5>10
40% from 3 is equivalent to 60% from 2 and hockey assists have been a tracked statistic for over a decade now. This isn’t hard to comprehend
4 for 10 isn't the same as 6 for 10. Bc there's more misses. Which would be long misses and more fast breaks for the other team. Or what happens is dudes take 3s when they should be taking 2s and the % is worse.
I have never seen a hockey assist on any basketball stat sheet
There isn't a hockey assist Stat. There is only assisted shots made and points off of assists.
@@Vorzillayou realise those same long rebounds often go to the same team who missed, right?
@@mazengwe28Clearly don’t understand more than just the basic raw stats that go on a players profile are tracked.
Gil just sounds like a fool barking at the moon sometimes
Sometimes?
Most of the time
There’s a argument for what he’s attempting to say but his points are dumb af. There’s a reason why these dudes don’t do well as coaches and executives
His point in this case and many others make sense, the players nowadays have insanely high percentages because of that 3 pointer and the way the count the 2 pointers and 3 pointers, he doesnt sound like a "fool" fuq outta here.
Seriously, this topic is really simple to understand if you get someone who can explain it right
What it boils down to: a 3 _attempt..._ is considered more valuable than a made two smh. That's wild fr.
Ironically, Stephen Curry knows the flaw in that approach.
Your content is fresh, keep it going!
0:06 Rashads expression is priceless lmao
😐like this niqqa here 🤣
Wearing loose socks to bed = drug addiction/depression cure🟤🟣🔵
What if you sleep buk naked.
I’m glad actual players agree with what I think the moment anyone says true shooting percentage to me I don’t wanna talk no more
I wouldn't say actual players. I'd say casuals, instead.
This was how Prime Harden fans justified games that were only FREE THROWS
Prime Harden couldn’t be guarded
@@369pendulum there were games he wasn’t 82-0, obviously
@@369pendulumnot a soul could've guarded prime harden or 2016 lebron
@@iguesss That goes every single player that’s ever played the game
@@Luka21010 That’s a fact!
Analytics are just numbers that can be manipulated by players and teams and interpreted in ways that support whatever narrative a team, player, media, fans want out there…it just enhances story telling
That was much the case when Gil played. There've been dozens of more advanced stats become more accessible to mainstream, and they are harder to manipulate by stat-padding.
We learned mean median and mode in school, it’s simple math, add the 3 shooting analysis and then divide by 3, that is a great way to see how a player is impacting the game in scoring in total because u can’t devalue free throws
Clearly best if you didn't say "we learned", when Gil's involved.
As a teacher this is scary to see a grown man not understand basic math and people in comments agreeing lol.
I'm 56 and I've been a numbers guy since I was in the 5th grade.. math cannot ever lie..that's all I count on in this life, everything else is just nonsense
@Dreamonoid I've seen players right under the basket, kick it out for a failed 3 attempt when all they had to do is maintain the lead.
This isn't basic math. This is actually fake math bc it's only counting makes. Well in a game your MISSES count toom more mises means more fast breaks for the other team more bad possessions and more missed opportunities to score
@@RONALD......and I'm sure you've never won anything related to basketball either
@@Vorzilla
Basketball?? Eff are you talking about?? I said I depend on math because it doesn't lie
True shooting percentage is an efficiency measure of how well your shot all of your shots (2s, 3s and FTAs).
that is true. what is also true is if you only rely on true percentage, you miss a lot of things that actually happened. They arguing as if it's black and white as if they don't also use the other %s depending on context. If you ask the question how was that players night shooting? You can answer it with true percentage. If you want to break it down you need the individual percentages to actually understand how good a player played
One thing that isn't studied and discussed enough is how the 3 pt shot effects rebounding, especially offensive rebounding and scoring from those offensive rebounds.
Actually that was one of the justifications behind the three-point revolution.
@@iguacu3517 - Perhaps. I just wish it was discussed more and presented in all of the data analysis they do of basketball. I think it would help some of the current strategies make more sense.
@blackurustrikes2328 it's very much discussed. When the 3 point attempts went up the rebounds became longer so that's why you saw way more triple-doubles from point guards. When everything is at the rim the bigs get all the boards.
Great topic. They should talk about analytics in this manner more often.
How does Gil not understand true shooting percentage? It’s not the end-all-be-all, but it’s a simple concept.
I think he understands it, he just doesn't agree with it because all basketball analysts are looking at are numbers and figures. Not the other stuff outside of the numbers.
@@zaynes5094 True shooting is the perfect example of stats evolving to represent actual on court phenomena better.
he clearly does understand but seems to think it's the only statistic used to judge a players performance....
40% from 3 is equivalent to 60% from 2. And with an increase in the number of shots taken today, the 3 makes more sense.
No it doesn't if you're not a shooter and it's not equivalent to 60 not does it help winning if you don't get those 4 shots in the end. Only a few guys take enough 3s for 40% to matter. It's not like guys take 20 threes per game. The midrange is more efficient.
@@TLR1988 In the modern day the 3 is more efficient, but it was back then too, but people have gotten so good at 3s now, they can shoot a high volume of them as a primary scoring attack, and it be logical to take 3s instead now with all the spacing
the 3 makes more sense in an ABSTRACT study
that game itself is NOT an abstraction
we actually live in a REAL WORLD not and abstraction
@@gangstagummybear3432 players are like 3 percentage pts better now at 3s than they were in 1998; not much at all
they just shoot a ton of them thats all
@@TLR1988bro nobody’s saying Rudy Gobert shoot shoot 5 3’s a game because of “analytics” if u want to be stuck in the Stone Age that’s fine
This is the difference between management and workers. A worker might believe he is being a productive worker while management breaks down your performance and evaluates if you are as productive as you can and need to be.
As a casual I just look at the field goal percentage, if you’re around 50% you’re doing alright 😂
How is it difficult to understand? If someone contributed more points with the same amount of shots as someone else, then he has a higher TS%. That simple.
That wasn't their argument it's true shooting percentage is being used to make people think 1 dimensional shooters are great shooters and scorers when they are not
Easy to find these NONE BASKETBALL players. Analytics do not matter, unless you are a gambler. Hoops, have been HOOPS, before any of this crap. These numbers MEAN ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. A three pointer is still a bad shoot when there is a free layup available.
Called context. The thing you don’t have because you didn’t play. You can’t judge the quality of the shot based on the numbers alone. To someone who didn’t play true percentage makes sense because you don’t understand the game. Funny how people who like analytics the most are people who couldn’t hit the side of the backboard but casuals need to feel like they know more than the people who actually do the job
@@washingtonrlEvery team has an analytics department. You can say what you want but it matters
@@danomaly8943 a prime example of someone who doesn't really understand analytics
Analytics changed the game for worst
Nah, the game became more efficient.
@@4evahodlingdoge226 it’s pure bs you got people thinking players like quickley better than iverson cuz of true shooting and other things . That’s just an random example btw
@@4evahodlingdoge226 it prolly did but all the best players still shoot midranges so
@@snupedummyno one said that,
@@4evahodlingdoge226 Yeah. Talent evaluation became better. The eye test became less valuable. Melo was a great example of that. He looked great with the eye test, but the numbers told a different story. He was never an efficient scorer, but people loved him because it looked good when he did score.
Gil . . . basically this is how Boston overwhelms people. They gun up a bunch of 3s, trying to generate 50+ points from 3. Then they try to get layups or shots at the rim for the rest of their offense. Midrange shots become most important at the end of games, when you rely on your star and superstar players to make a bucket at the end of the game.
why didn't it work against the Heat last year
Tatum shot 23%
Brown shot 16%
Horford shot 28%
Brogdan and Pritchard shot 17 and 14%
Hauser shot 25%
Tatum averaged 7 attempts per game
Brown averaged 6 attempts per game
If Rashad was that size when he played he might have been like Gary Payton on defense
Beautiful conversation.
#Knicks4Life
High level analysis!
I would like to see yall bring a stat guy on after this conversation to really break it down & see how everyone feels about it. Thinking Basketball here on CZcams comes to mind first.
We know how "everyone" feels about it. They don't have the brains for it, but they are sometimes forced to try to use it.
This is exactly why players in the 00s like Iverson Kobe Tmac had lower percentages, they were putting up several times more 2 pointers at a higher volume
Yup and they also settled for long 2’s which today is probably the worst shot you can take
@@marcos81898 Exactly, sadly these players will eventually be forgotten because analytics make current day look good because the 3 point boom of the current day
@@gangstagummybear3432True shooting actually helps players like Kobe and AI because it’s takes into account the way they scored
Kobe shot 45% FG, Ben Simmons 56% FG
Kobe True shooting: 55%
Ben Simmons True shooting: 58%
TS kills the notion that Kobe was inefficient. FG% would hold Ben Simmons WAY over Kobe while ignoring the shots Ben Simmons takes vs Kobe. Simmons took layups and dunks while Kobe shot out past 15 feet which hurt his fg%. When you factor in the types of shots, Kobe’s efficiency starts to look much better.
@@gangstagummybear3432 To put further context
Luka’s True shooting this season is 61.7% and Giannis is 61.0%
Luka’s FG is 48% and Giannis’s FG is 61%. FG% would mean Giannis > Luka by a wide margin but we all know that they’re debatable as to who’s better and Luka’s percentage takes a hit because he shoots further from the rim and takes more 3s
@@tiktokformenofculture9753the thing is you don’t need analytics and true shooting to tell you that Luka is on Giannis level and the reason Giannis shoots is higher percentage is because of dunks and layups……. No one needs that.
Analytics have been telling casual fans for a decade now that Gobert is the greatest defensive bigman to ever live. They’ve told people that Jokić is on the same level shooting the ball as Dirk Nowitizki and we know BOTH to be untrue or do we??
Todays nba is like a high level park game without the edge...
This is very simple math a 3 is more than 2
Analytics is why a 3 on 1 fast break now results in a 3 point shot being taken instead of a layup.
The analytics say Golden State Warriors can take a fast-break three, if they choose to. But even they mostly take layups.
We gonna go the flath earth with this one!! 🗣🗣
Just think of 50 40 90 when you think of the percentage adjustment they measure degree of difficulty and points for a made attempt.
Thank you! Hoopers don't pay attention to that bs. We keep em separate. I know if I'm 1 for 4 from 3 to start the game I'm not going to just keep settling for 3s.
And going to the cup is different because of the potential free-throws, and jumper is going to phased out.
Gil about to snap😂😂😂 I’m with Gil.
I hate to say it, I need a David Stern back. 😭
facts lmao
Yes get David Stern back so we only have Cavs Warriors Heat Lakers Celtics in the Finals for a whole decade. Lmao that man rigged everything
@@yormeaceko7101. Definitely ain’t gonna argue with that. But the NBA now..that’s my point and no lebum bro.
watch Gil's highlight reel. Dude was BALLN!
No need. I just look at his true shooting percentage.
I think Gil should be the standard for just because you played in the league don’t mean you have a valid opinion
John Salley has been guesting shows, and he has some takes just like Gil's, but Salley has rings.
The thing people miss with TS% is that it's fine for the long run, but when you get towards the end of a game and you just need buckets regardless of whether it's a 2 or a 3, that's when FG% is actually more valuable.
Yo, B Jennings Hoodie is straight 💣💣💣💥💯💯💯💯
That quick math was fuckin gil up
Jo living in an analytical world 😂😂😂 cants and Gil are 💯
Basketball talk without any analytics is something like 50, not 💯
So I guess in football, if we make 2 touchdowns, that’s like going 4 for 4 in field goals? Am I wrong in my understanding of how they are equating the 2’s and 3’s stats?
Gilbert and Math are having a problem, lol.
Analytics have changed the game in a negative way. I watch games where there are wide-open layups and they kick it out for a 3. It's crazy. When the game is on the line, most players are trying to get to the cup or midrange.
Analytics has changed the game yes but the whole midrange is dead is an overblown lie. Even analytics people admit that your best player should be the one taking midrange shots because that’s going to be the open shot you can create late in the game. The shooting 3s and layups is for the role players. You don’t really see role players taking midrange shots anymore unless they’re wide open
even in the playoffs i see clowns do this smh
@@supremeleem9488 not true
analytics guys say the mid range is a waste of time; thats why you see guys about to take a shot take 2 steps BACK behind the line before shooting
@supremeleem9488 even elite players are told it's a bad shot. Mudiay (sic) was recently on a podcast saying the Jazz coaches told Donovan Mitchell to stop shooting so many midrange shots. I agree, we rarely see role players shoot midrange shots.
That's players' misunderstanding of analytics, not the analytics themselves. Since an uncontested layup for an NBA player is darned near 100% shot, kicking it out for a 40% shot makes zero sense, analytically speaking.
This is why every team has people in the front office who understand basic math.
I have yet to hear an argument against analytics from someone who actually understands them.
That. And I have yet to meet a data analytic, who solely looks at stats and doesn't watch games at all. Because according to people who can't read stats, most data analytics don't watch games at all.
I agree 100 percent with Gil and Rashad . View the statistics as an actual basketball player not from an analytical POV .
He needs to look at eFG%. Yes it counts the extra point for 3's but it disregards the FT and somewhat uncomplicates things
Gil is the man
He's the Stat-Man.
Short Bus Gil 😂😂😂
Obsession with analytics is why NBA rantings are down. But the NBA still making money and getting huge deals (Amazon, NBC). The NBA has become a 3pt jacking fest. A lot of the best scorers are killers from the mid range (SGA, Brunson, KD, Kyrie, Kawhi).
True shooting takes into consideration The mid range and if we didn’t have that stat, people would be trying to say AI and Kobe are bums because of their fg%. Mid range shots are less efficient than layups and FG% doesn’t address that so if I said I’d rather have Ben Simmons over kawhi in a clutch situation, I can just point to their fg% without any context and say kawhi shoots 52% and Ben Simmons shoots 58%
While true shooting has kawhi at 62.5% and Ben Simmons at 58% because kawhi takes mid range and 3pt shots while Ben Simmons only takes layups so fg% doesn’t reflect skill level
When having a valid argument doesn't mean you are telling the truth...
It’s a stat to analyze ero players hence Dallas starting this metric
It’s literally just basic math… points per shot.
Explains a lot of Gil's takes, that he really doesn't know a thing about stats.
Bring back hand checking, that’ll make it harder in the paint and on the 3 point line. And bring back value to the mid range
And move the 3-point line back out.
These comments illustrate the difference between people who actually play basketball and people who just look at basketball statistics.
Just because 40% from 3 is worth more than 50% from 2 doesn't mean you need to shoot more threes than twos.
Zero people just look at stats.
Exactly when you shoot nothing but 3's you're taking the easy way out
Second assist or “hockey assist” should absolutely be a stat imo
Maybe if Gill didnt storm out classrooms saying they're whack and shutting off the lights in college he might have a better grasp to the stats..
LoL.
Advanced statistics make sense but you have to add in context. Shooting 4-10 from 3 is not the same as going 12-20 from 2. Idk why he made that example. It’s just putting extra weight on the 3 pointers made gives you since it gives you 3 instead of 2 points. True shooting really just shows you the value of shooting 3 pointers.
Why they keep thinking people only looks at TS%.. 🤦🤣
TS% includes free throw percentage too... 😂
Why they keep thinking people only looks at TS%.. 🤦🤣
No they preaching! That’s like saying someone who passes a math test should get a b in English just because math is a harder subject
Gil is entertaining. He is wrong like 95% of the time and knows almost nothing about basketball, but that makes him so much fun to watch and listen.
I couldn't disagree more. A former pro basketball player that is wrong about basketball 95% of the time and knows nothing about basketball is not someone I want to listen to. He's in his 40s and his entire show is bout hot takes to go viral. That's pathetic.
@@roboninja3194 I think it is supposed to be satire in most cases. I find it hard to believe he is that out of touch.
@@videogamersEUhe’s just grifting for the $. It’s sad that players want media to not be about hot takes, clickbait and headlines but many of them end up doing a remix of the traditional media method.
They’re not calculating in the turnover and opponent scoring opportunities when doing 3 vs 2 pt. It’s like saying you go back to school to make x amount more but calculate in lost revenue For all those years
They should've had an expert on this to elaborate. Talking to themselves only shows their perspective - questioning the data.
Josiah know he be dancing around shit knowing he’s saying some bullshit
TS% is a stat for people who dont really watch. 3s are more valuable than 2s, i get the logic but without context it could be detrimental. a contested 3 should never be a better shot than an open layup.
A contested three has a far worse probability of succeeding than a contested layup, and that shows on the stat-sheet.
TS% is for people who watch and people who don't watch. It's purpose is to be able to compare players of different position.
@Gil the metric makes sense if the stat was called “scoring percentage” obviously based on the current combined stats “in game (not including free throws). Basically it seems like this is when the “stat language” is limited compared to the current “3’s are worth more” aka “post-Steph” NBA agenda…. I’ll say this… I’m sure we could ALL agree that 3’s are prioritized by default due to the leagues desire to sell “high scoring”… now the players pursue *league deemed important stats for higher pay just like us non nba players do at our 9-5’s… higher performance = pay. Or this 1… score more in less time is the truest essence of the scale. Love the show. Shad u take a lot of heat, but you are vital to the show and yes… it IS obvious!!!😅😅😅
It's an incentive to get what the owners think they want.
Never had true shooting percentage broken down lik that, and i agree with the arena, it's bs.
TS includes Free Throws too
eFG% is 2s and 3s
Can we get rid of the nerds from the game of basketball. Not everyone should shoot 3’s
You're not making sense. It's the nerds who say, everyone shouldn't shoot 3's.
Bro they are so slow sometimes , I feel for Josiah trynna explain this to them 😂
Not sure who "they" are, but the whole Arena just spent 5 minutes explaining 1st grade mathematics to Gil.
@@penkima4923 I was referring to Gil , Rashad and Brandon who didn’t understand the math .
TSP doesn’t account for time of game. It doesn’t account for momentum. It can’t account for injuries. It can’t account for player fatigue.
Numbers are just that. Numbers. Use them for what you choose.
That's true, if you try to analyze games just by looking at true shooting %.
That’s just like when you bet the odds will be like 4.5 points there is no half point in basketball. Analytics is wild
If you really think analytics is wild, you might have a future in analytics business.
Hockey assists should of been a thing for a LONG time.
I agree with Gil 100% on this! I definitely didn’t know that’s how TS% was calculated. 😂😂😂😂😂
You can't do that _😂😂😂😂_
Looking purely at efficiency, it makes sense. In the wnba angel reese is shooting 33% from the field, and she mainly scores on the inside. That is terrible. If that was 33% from 3, still not great but she’ll be getting 50% more points (if my math is correct).
Problem is, analytics don’t take into account defensive tendencies. Let’s say KD drains 4 mid range shots in a row. The center might slide over trying to contest it, the corner defender might try to help, KDs match up will be more aggressive trying to stop the middy.
If the center slides over to contest and KD misses, it means it’s an easier offensive rebound since the center is out of position, or even better it gives up an open dunk which is the most efficient shot. If the corner defender drops, it could lead to a wide open 3 instead of a contested 3. If KD’s match up is defending more aggressively, he might foul which means free throws which are a lot more efficient. If they’re in foul trouble, it means a worse player is put in off the bench which means easier offense and defense for KD’s team. Not to mention, for an nba player it’s important to get into rhythm. If the shooter gets into a rhythm in the midrange and sees shots go in, his 3s will go in more often.
These are things not taken into account in analytics. They don’t take into account the game within the game.
But still there’s no argument that 3s are more efficient a shot compared to 2s.
There's plenty of arguments for 2's over 3's.
When KD's mid-range shots get contested, it's up to KD to adapt to that. If he succeeds in adapting, it may show on the stat-sheet straight up in the form of increased assists. Or just by maintaining a high +/- stat. There's an endless amount of stats in this day and age, and few things doesn't show up in them. But it's still more convenient to watch the game, and couple appropriate stats with it. Than to investigate a course of a game, by just looking at stats.
They sure looking at it from player’s perspective and not coaching.
Assist needs to be updated. Hockey assist would be great
There's a separate stat for them called the secondary assist.
It weighs the three-point shot more
It gives more importance to three-point shot
It means Gil has lower intelligence than most 10 year olds.
They are trying to explain weighted avg
5:08 true percentage removes the context from the score. It’s like looking at someone who shot 11-23 but went 9/9 in the fourth quarter. That means for 3 quarters you were trash but according to analytics they played “well”. Numbers without context are just bullshit but non hoopers can apply non sequitur logical arguments to hoop.
How is 11-23 trash?
@@StoneyGreeneyes Can you read? I explained it clearly.
You sound like you learned TS% from Gil.
@@penkima4923 That’s how most hoopers look at true shooting. Notice how everyone who disagrees CANT play and probably have NEVER played the game. How are all the coaches and former players wrong but the casuals who never played right
@@danomaly8943 That's you guessing, how most hoopers look at TS%. Gil just showed, he has trouble figuring out 4th grade math, so people should disagree with him. Fans disagree, and you didn't ask any players. You have no idea how coaches and former players think about TS%. And I'm not talking about coaches at the level where they get to coach their own children.
4/10 3PM is the same as 6/15 2PM. Both are 40%, and have the potential of scoring 30 points. But missing 6 threes is a lot better than missing 9 twos. That’s what the analytics are showing.
Every time someone on this show opens their mouth you realize that not all former nba players should be allowed to talk about the nba
Stats have utility, but of course, watching and assessing the games will always be the ultimate tool. I think the panel should invite someone who understands the analytics on a deeper level for clarity.
Gil doesn't accept stats at the most basic level, so probably not on advanced, either. Yet, Gil is called the Stat-Man, and is required to lean on stats frequently.
Guys if they just use money as a base of the argument it would make more sense. A 3 is 50% more than a 2. So 4 3=6/2 and the more you go the higher the scale.
Wow. But at least they're being nice to her.
TS% is the dumbest analytic. Why would you need a stat that lumps all these things together that already have a % to look at and you can gauge way better by looking at the separate percentages than one.
You actually gauge it better with TS%. If you shoot mostly 3s and shoot about 40 percent from 3 that’s great. However your FG% would also be around 40% which doesn’t look good. TS% just takes into account that 3s are worth more than 2s so you can see how efficient someone really is from one stat. It’s really not a hard concept to grasp
This show lower your iq everytime you watch it Arenas is so dumb obviously TS% is the most accurate measurement of efficiency
@@supremeleem9488I would rather just look at 2pt & 3pt percentages separately and look at the moments the shots were made and how contested they were on the attempts to judge a players shooting night. Were the 2pt shots on close outs at the 3pt line? If you're lumping stats together it just becomes lazy.
If you're going to say 3s are worth more then so are big buckets that give you the lead in the final minutes or a game winner. So if you go 1-6 from 3 with your foot right behind the line on 5 attempts while wide open but hit a half court buzzer beater to win a game while contested shouldn't that raise your TS% based on the logic? Kobe spent multiple seasons being the only player worth guarding on his team and was constantly shooting tough congested mid range shots.. but now a player hitting a 3 after getting a screen is somehow getting bonus credit ?
U use it to compare players
@@supremeleem9488this is stupid. What is the benefit? It SHOULD be separate. At the very least you’ll have a better gauge on what you should and shouldn’t be doing .
3:36 “if you shoot 2-10 from 3 but 4/4 from field (2) you’re having a great night from the field (2)…”
Which would be 6/14.. which is not a great shooting night..
Let's be real advance analytics in basketball was to discredit the Kobe Bryant & Allen Iversons of the world.
wrong, it was invented to help them. no one is praising kobe 44%fg without true shooting
No, it was to beat the Warriors. Kobe & A.I. have nothing do with the conversation. Darryl Morey realized the only way to compete with the Warriors was to shoot more 3s
Analytics aren’t needed to know shooting a ton of shots and making a low percentage of them isn’t good. They just look beyond “he dropped 30” and add context to the fact that he was 11 for 28 while taking low percentage/ low value/highly contested shots. We already knew AI having whole seasons of sub 40% shooting was bad
@bboywolf How did it help Kobe when advance analytics move the goal post? Steve Nash won back to back MVPs as #1 seed and Jokic won back to back MVPs as #3 and #5 seed. Kobe should have at least 2 MVPs if these advance analytics were in place to help him.
@@daniellatkowsky6284 True that, id love to see most players put up that "sub 40% shooting" the volume iverson was putting up with virtually no other offensive help in the hardest era in history to score in at 6 feet tall
Nba trainers are the ones that stress analytics because most of them were small guys that coukd only shoot threes or had to throw up crazy one legged layups or get blocked!
They stress analytics, because when Steph changed the game, they were asked how he did it.
ANALYTICS IS THE REASON WHY JOKIC STOLE TWO MVP’S
which years, and who should've won those years
A field goal attempt is a field goal attempt 10 shots are still considered 10 field goal attempts
Sounds like they should change the name to "Points Scored Percentage".
Also this sounds like a stat for fans and not players or coaches to use.
Sometimes the whole is not the sum of its parts
Easy on the grass, brah.